Variations in aggrecan structure modulate its susceptibility to aggrecanases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Proteoglycan aggregates and purified aggrecan from adult and fetal bovine cartilage and adult and neonatal human cartilage were subjected to in vitro degradation by recombinant aggrecanase-1 and aggrecanase-2. The ability of the aggrecanases to cleave within the aggrecan IGD (interglobular domain) and CS2 domain (chondroitin sulphate-rich domain 2) was monitored by SDS/PAGE and immunoblotting. Aggrecanase-2 showed a similar ability to cleave within the IGD of adult and immature aggrecan, whereas aggrecanase-1 was less efficient in cleavage in the IGD of immature aggrecan, for both the bovine and the human substrates. Both aggrecanases showed a similar ability to cleave within the CS2 domain of bovine aggrecan irrespective of age, but showed a much lower ability to cleave within the CS2 domain of human aggrecan. Equivalent results were obtained whether aggrecan was present in isolation or as part of proteoglycan aggregates. When proteoglycan aggregates were used, neither aggrecanase was able to cleave link protein. Thus, for aggrecan cleavage by aggrecanases, variations in cleavage efficiency exist with respect to the species and age of the animal from which the aggrecan is derived and the type of aggrecanase being used.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".